Ten oz

WASHINGTON – Vice President Pence on Tuesday argued against pulling down Confederate monuments, calling that an attempt to “erase parts of our history just in the name of some contemporary political cause.” “Rather than tearing down monuments that have graced our cities all across this country for years, we ought to have been building more monuments,” Pence told Fox & Friends. “We ought to be celebrating the men and women who've helped our nation move toward a more perfect union and tell the whole story of America.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/22/pence-backs-adding-monuments-not-taking-them-down-contemporary-political-cause/589609001/ According to Mike Pence removing monuments, which do not actually date by to the Civil War in the first place, erases history. Meanwhile speaking about Confederates soldiers who fought for secession as "men and women who've helped our nation move toward a more perfect union" doesn't erase history?

In my opinion this is a terribly uninformed statement. Which successful nation in the world today didn't get something for others did not, were helped, or simply take by force what they have? More over every affluent nation is this world provides various things to their citizens for free. Is Germany full of uneducated people because their free higher education education system does motivate them to seek an education or are you literally saying your statement only applies to food and water? I think you are ignoring the scioeconomics that create strife around the world. Only in a perfect world free from structural inequality and all other external exploitations would it make sense to blame starvation on inadequate motivation of those who starve.

This thread is about the impact of Trump's policy but Trump really doesn't have policies. His approach thus far has been to demand others to come up with something. On Healthcare he relied on the Congress to make something up from scratch and provided no ideas. Ditto for yet to be debated tax reform. On Afghanistan he ordered General to provide him solutions and with North Korea everyone from the Sec of State, U.N ambassador, Sec of Defense, and Trump himself all describe the situation in different terms. How can we accurately rate the effect of Trump's policies when he doesn't seems to author any?

I suspect this to be true. Following agriculture societies have the prosperity to start building pyramids and all manner of things to display the progress and affluence of their societies.

True but the softness that makes it easy to work with also makes it a poor material for tools. 40th century BC its use would have been decorative more than anything else. The existence of mines proves it had value to people. I am not questioning that. Obviously it was sought after. I am not sure it being shiny was the reason....or maybe it was. Just seems like a big expenditure of reasons for something that looks pretty.

Student debt is a real problem in the U.S. but to a certian extent one brought on by personnal choices. Students can select to attend community colleges to knock out all their general course then transfer to a 4yr. In many states community colleges are very inexpensive. Also with the abundance of online programs and quality Universities in every state there isn't a good reason, in my opinion, for students to attend schools that require them to relocate unless they are pursuinng a highly specialized degree. I do some recruiting for my employer from time to time and travel to different campuses. I havemet many freshman and sophomores who attend school full time, do not work, and have relocated several hundred miles or more yet are pursuing degrees in things like criminal justice, general biology, Nursing, and etc; degree types they could have pursued from anywhere. My co-worker has a niece graduating this year from High school and he is trying to convince her to stay here in Washington DC area for college but she wants to attend Ohio State. Meanwhile she doesn't even know what she want to do degree wise yet. I think it is insane. Rather than live with family for free and go to school she is about the start accumulating debt to go live in Ohio. So while far too many students have far too much debt I think many students are simply making bad choices and or getting bad advice from their families.

Which is why I find it odd humans have been mining it for 7,000 years. Gold mines in the 40th century BC seem like a waste of resources. Perhaps that was the point though. Societies with enough resources to waste on gold could then use the gold as an example of their prosperity.

In 1950 segregation was law of the land in 15 states, the national High School graduation rate was 58% (its 83% today), in 1950 only 6% of the population had a college degree (33% today), homeownership rate in 1950 was 55% compared to 64% today, motor vehicle death rate was 24 per 100k compared to 11 per 100k today, cigerettes were considered safe to smoke everywhere, it was acceptable to sexually harass women, and etc, etc, etc. Below I linked a citation for the homeownership rate since it most directly counters your statement about two story homes and good salaries. Less people home homes in 1950. That said I can provide citiations for the rest it needed. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html The dream is not dead. As a matter of fact the present is the best time to have every lived in the U.S. if you're an immigrant, woman, African American, Latino, Asian, member of the LGTB community, Muslim, Hindu, Athiest, or anything other than a White Christian Male.

"graves of the necropolis were built between 4700 and 4200 BC, indicating that gold mining could be at least 7000 years old.[2] A group of German and Georgian archaeologists claims the Sakdrisi site in southern Georgia, dating to the 3rd or 4th millennium BC, may be the world's oldest known gold mine" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining No doubt gold was found in rivers and what not well before mining began. That said the oldest mines are believed to go date back 7,000 years. As for its decorative properties and use as currency I mentioned that. It is what happened. Gold along with other precious stone became currency.

I was in the audience for a Q & A with Laurene Powell Jobs (billionaire philanthropist) and she was answering questions about various charities she supports. She kept being asked about ways to grow and expand the charities when she cautioned and made what I thought was an excellent point. She explained that it is the role of govt andnot the role of charity to structural maintain society. That it is great that people donate money to schools for new books but ultimately people shouldn't have to and that we shouldn't allow our civic duty to maintain good governance to be replaced by a reliance of philanthropy. Only by gettinng everyone to buy in and work together can big problems be solved. To that end I think some charities act as bandaids which allow important problems to go ignored or responsible parties to not be held accountable. It is a fine line.

I have wondered in the past what the initial appeal of gold was. Earliest known gold mines date back 7,000 years. That is a few thousand years before humans started making and using cions. Gold is too soft to have been terribly useful for tool construction. It is nice to look at I suppose but mining it requires a lot of effort and logistics. It strikes me as odd that societies which had just began cultivating gain, domesticating livestock, and etc would waste their time and resources mining for gold. That said the obsession with gold isn't a universal one. While gold mines in Eastern Europe go back 7,000 years they only go back several hundred years in the Americas. Until the miodern era gold has really never been used for anything other than currency or decoration. It seems its value, like the value of any currency, exists within what people project onto it.

I think it is worth noting that real pieces of history are removed all the time. Original homes, buildings, parks, forrests, and etc are bulldozed to make way for freeways, shopping centers, mines, crops, and etc all the time. Local efforts and national efforts like the national regristry of historical places managed by the national parks service attempt to preserve history but are often labelled as over reaching and harmful to business. These confederate monuments are not historical pieces that date back to the Civil War. They are pieces of art erected decades after the civil war by those enamored with the confederacy. I find the charge that removing these confederate art peices erases history, being made by Trump and various other Republican and conversative groups, very disingenuous considering Trump and GOP leaders in congress are seeking to slash the National Parks Service's budget to pay for tax cuts. Same national park service that manages he national regristry of historical places.

Can you support that with a citation? I find it shocking that the Civil War would be the focus of more history books than Antiquity, Egypt, Ancient Greece, or etc.

"CSA monument with the inscription "to honor the sacred memory of the pioneers who built Orange County after their valiant efforts to defend the Cause of Southern Independence" in Santa Ana Cemetery. Installed in 2004" "Traveler, the name of Robert E. Lee's famous horse and Traveler, mascot of the University of Southern California" "Fort Bragg (town): A US Army garrison was named in 1857 for then US Army officer Braxton Bragg who later became a Confederate General." "There are at least four remaining markers of the Jefferson Davis Highways in the state of California including the following: Berkerfield in Pioneer Village, installed in 1942 and rededicated in 1968. Hornbrook installed in 1944. Lebec at Fort Tejon dedicated in 1956 and rededicated in 1976. Winterhaven at Fort Yuma, installed in 1931." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Unfortunately it is not accurate to say they are ALL in other states. There are Monuments and Memorials to Confederates in 30 states which means the majority of the country has them. Even some states that weren't officially states during the Civil War have them. If one group wants option "A" and other groups wants option "C" than many people automatically assume option "B" is an acceptable safe position. By created a protracted discussion about whether Nazis and KKK members are any different than other standard political advocacy groups like BLM and obfucating the underlining issues I think the argument for "keeping history" has become that safe option "B" squeezed between calls to denounce hatred and united the whites. The compromise is to denounce hate groups but keep history. I think some people don't get any deeper into it than that.

More or less valid doesn't factor into it.

Yes but aren't we well into that area where one would need to explain their differences?

The life and teachings of Jesus are in the Bible. Grant it I suppose one could separate the New Testament out. I wasn't aware my reference to the Bible was the crux of the point you were making. If so than sure, I agree.

What does this have to do with what I posted? I have made no character judgements about Christians. Rather I have mrely state that what it is to be a Christian has a definition and general meaning. Same goes for the titles of Athiest and Agnostic. The word Athiest has a definition. It means disbelieving in or lacking belief in god. If one is indifferent neither believing or disbelieving thay are Agnostic by definition. I agree 100%. However in order to make those differences clear one must know and be able to acknowledge what is commonly assumed and for various reasons people are not always willing to do that.

I am not attempting to dictate anyones faith to them. My point is simply that a definition for what a Christian is exists. I didn't write it or insist it be written but it exists all the same. As such when one doesn't fit that definition they technically aren't that thing. That said I don't care if someone chooses to practice their self professed christian beliefs by attending a church of scientology I am okay with it. My point is merely that it will create difficult discussions in religious related threads because everyone involved will be operatinng on their own understandings. A Christian ( /ˈkrɪʃtʃən/ ( listen) or /ˈkrɪstjən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who serves as the focal point of the Christian faith. Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, and rose from the dead, in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity I don't care if a person calls themselve Christian but does chooses to to adhere to Christianity. Doesn't bother. My point is simply that there are definitions for things and when one calls themself something or associates themselves with something there are various things which typically are implied and or assumed.

I think that is a perfect place to start. I have learned a lot about investing by following up with the various things I didn't understand when reading news concerning the stock market. The things going over your head are the things you don't know. Learning those things would increase your general knowledge and it is even measurable in that as you research the things you don't understand eventually when reading the news things will stop going over your head. Your ability to get through the news without questions or confusion can be your gauge.

@Delta1212, I don't disagree with any of that in terms of the way things are commonly understood. That said by definition a christian does need to believe/accept christian text and the teachings of Jesus. You are right that is is common place for that to not always be the case the definition is muted by practice. My other example was claiming to understand general relativity and believe it but also claiming gravity doesn't exist. This is a science forum and the thread is asking about science-based privilege. When common place contradictoral positions in the literal sense but perhaps less so in popular practice meet empirical fact based discuss (or who gravitate towards it) I think there will always be ruffled feathers. If someone is being antagonistic towards a statement of truth, whether that statement comes across as criticism or not, shame on them in my opinion. It is just my opinion though. I am not saying this is absolutely the way things are. I concede my whole post could be off base.

It is a good question. In no way am I claiming I have the answer. As perviously state most of the discussons which are not polite in nature that I see arise from someone pushing a contradiction or falsehood. Depending on ones tolerence for criticism (constrictive or otherwise) any level of correction or objection can be viewed as antagonistic.

Some posters want there ideas treated individually regardless of the larger implications of those ideas and it creates combative discussions. We see this over and over in various threads. In religious thread some posters will identify as Christian but then refuse to stand by any of inaccurate teachings in Christian text. They accept the title/identity but then don't feel it is acceptable for them to be boxed by the belief. It is a contradiction. If one doesn't believe in the bibles teachings or in the resurrection than by definition one isn't Christian. Yet we see posters often pick and choose which parts, al la carte style, of the bible they like and disregard the rest as not applicable. Reality is certian beliefs, theories, facts, and so on go together. One cannot insist they understand and accept general relativity but then also state they question the existence of gravity. Both can't be true. In my opinion most discussion here which result is posters questioning etiquette arise from one or more posters simply being contradictory or wrong and either lashing out at those who correct them or claim they aren't being understood.

You said your were curious and then went on to imply per your experience is wasn't white males. I provided evidence that your experience isn't what is happening and you aren't willing to address it instead choosing to deflect.

I suppose my post did go to waste? I provide research which demonstrated the advantages white males have in employment and education which directly counter you claim to the contrary. In your follow ups to iNow you seem to be asserting that the existence of your opinions somehow are their own circular justification; that is how you feel therefor it is fair its how I feel. Having a thought or belief in itself isn't a manifestation of logic, truth, or reason.